- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:27:11 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/06/2013 11:06 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/#text-shadow-property > specifies how to handle the omission of <color> only by reference to > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-box-shadow , which says > that when the <color> part of a shadow is omitted, the 'color' > property is used. > > In Gecko, which I believe implemented text-shadow before this was > specified, we instead shadow the color that was drawn. For text, > this yields the same result, but for text decorations, it yields a > different result. > > Compare, for example, the following: > http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cstyle%3E%0Abody%20%7B%20text-decoration%3A%20underline%3B%20color%3A%20green%20%7D%0Ap%20%7B%20color%3A%20blue%3B%20text-decoration%3A%20overline%20%7D%0Aspan%20%7B%20text-shadow%3A%201em%201.4em%2C%202em%202.8em%20silver%3B%20color%3A%20maroon%20%7D%0A%3C%2Fstyle%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cspan%3Ehello%3C%2Fspan%3E > in both Chrome (follows current spec) and Firefox. > > Is this choice of behavior intentional? If not, which is > preferable? It's not intentional, and I currently have no opinion on this. An interesting question: what color should it be once we can do patterned fills? ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:27:40 UTC